HISTORY AND MOOPOO

What is absolutely terrifying to me is that tools like this one (Monbiot) actually believe the bovine faeces that they espouse.

These are the ones who believe in the new neo-feudalist future the PoMo, faux Marxists preach. These are the ones who believe in the evolutionary differences between the 'aristocrats' and the 'peasants' and who believe that the world would be a better, happier place if we all just accepted our place in the global society and let the 'ruling class' rule:

"...consider the Utopian ruminations of Guardian columnist George Monbiot, whose urge to romanticise The Other - especially if The Other is brown and poor, and unable to challenge his bizarre worldview - is a thing to behold:
It is impossible not to notice that, in some of the poorest parts of the world, most people, most of the time, appear to be happier than we are. In southern Ethiopia, for example, the poorest half of the poorest nation on earth, the streets and fields crackle with laughter. In homes constructed from packing cases and palm leaves, people engage more freely, smile more often, express more affection than we do behind our double glazing, surrounded by remote controls.
That’s right. Forget about sanitation and drudgery, and the limited options in life. Think instead of how happy these Ethiopian peasants are, these beings we should emulate, with their quaint little shelters made of leaves and packing cases. It’s just so adorable. And not a single remote control to harsh the egalitarian buzz. Like his Guardian colleague Oliver James - another anhedonic hypocrite stressed by the contradictions of being a well-heeled middle-class lefty – Mr Monbiot wants us to believe that “wealth causes misery.” Yes, wealth is bad for “us” – by which of course he means bad for you."

These are the folk who occupy the high peaks of the political, academic, media, police and educational class:

The current Australian Liberal Party’s inability to form a unified, while still-broad church is instructive. When Yassmin Abdel-Mageid slags the Anzacs, appalling anyone with a streak of decency, and is allowed by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop to keep her nice little sinecure as the token tame Muslim at Foreign Affairs, you know your father’s Liberal Party is dead, buried and cremated.
The Pynes, the Brandises, the Turnbulls, and so on, stick their elitist noses in the air and avoid even contemplating those of us who simply want jobs, decent organisations to work for, family, shared values, stable virtues. At a risk of offending Quadrant Online’s policy against salty language, the yen is for no-bullshit normalcy – a life in a community, in other words, that somewhat resembles the happy times we grew up in and still remember fondly. [Paul Collits]

We are living with the consequences of this 'vision' in South Australia; highest unemployment in Australia, lowest jobs growth, worst medical and family health results, worst schooling results, highest electricity prices in a State with the greatest share of natural resources etc, etc.Victoria is still catching up regarding time spent ruling, but they are surpassing us in imbecilic, Utopian ideals.

The Victorian state spent more than a billion dollars paying NOT TO BUILD THE FREEWAY.
They spent a billion or more on a water purification pant they have never used (ditto SA), while water falls from the sky in such quantities that is causes destructive floods all over the state.
The jolly Green fanatics make sure no one burns off the undergrowth between the seasons and as a consequence they have one of the deadliest fires in their history and who do they blame? Why global warming of course.

Its like a bad movie but its real. And these 'benefits' are still in their infancy. Just watch and wait for the full impact of the socialist, Utopian dream to unfold in its entirety upon the average Victorian. The switching on the air-conditioning will be the least of your worries.

Unfortunately for our children, by the time the deliberately educationally bereft 'normal's' catch up to the real plan, it will be too late to do anything about it.

But looking on the bright side, its fools like this that will be the first to go in the new 'order'; history is proof of that.

A REVOLUTION MEANS TO RETURN TO THE SAME SPOT

A sobering thought has just occurred to me whilst relaxing on my comfortable reclining chair.

As any student of history (no matter how superficially one might have studied history) will observe; the natural state of humanity has always been chaos. The reasons for this differ depending on your worldview and cultural bias.

I myself have held a few different worldviews over a reasonably long life but have not been able to arrive at a better or more rational perspective than the one offered by the Bible.

That is; that mankind is corrupted from birth and all of his/her twistings and turnings are at their very root sinful. Not a word that sits well with the consciences(seared?) of today's generation.
In fact the use of the word these days opens one up to accusations of, well, sinfulness!

Anyhoo....back to my musings from the reclining chair.

What we see from any study of history, no matter how cursory, is humanity in a state of chaos...and yet the Western cultures have manged to achieve a modicum of equilibrium in spite of history proving otherwise. The question remains How?

Well IMHO I believe that it has been the cumulative accretion of the Judaeo-Christian worldview as it managed to gain superiority through an application of what works over what fails during the past 2 millennia.

And it is this worldview that has been systematically dismantled and is under constant attack by the Utopianists of today.

Looking forward to the natural state of mankind being fully restored[sarc].

IPSO FACTO IT'S MADNESS

The superficial acceptance and advocacy of the main-stream-media and wealthy elites towards the 'Antifa' radicals is both breathtaking and scary. These misguided idiots think that the ever increasing acts of vandalism by these low life scum are somehow 'ethical':

“People sometimes do things that are illegal, but I think they’re ethical,” Ben said. “I’m happy to be in this mass that creates anonymity for those people, even if they’re doing things I’m not willing to do.” [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html

This is the worldview of those who regarded Charles Manson as a 'cool dude' and who wear images of Che Guevara and Mao Tse Tung on their T-shirts. All they are accomplishing is an affirmation of the adage that ignorance is difficult to disguise.

The violence and the sheer anarchy of this movement of ingenue terrorists is swept aside because they are 'fashionable'. Just as the Black Panthers during the 60's were the fashionable accessory of any chic party, so these days the garb of the Antifa thugs is de rigueur apparel for the 'woke' fashionista of today's 'radical chic':   

"There is solid beauty advice as well: “A layer of glitter or highlighter dusted over your cheeks can serve double duty, showing off your glorious bone structure while simultaneously providing a helpful way to determine which side of your bandanna was in contact with your face and which side is saturated in tear gas particulate.” (Also, jean shorts are probably not ideal.)

There is more practical advice on how to dress for a riot. One should decide on organic or synthetic gloves before participating in an action: Wool and cotton may allow chemical contaminants, like pepper spray, to absorb, while nylon can melt if you grab something hot, which historically has included some kinds of tear-gas canisters but can include various things on fire. [ibid]

The psychological upheavals that have infested the minds of academia and the neo-feudalist elite, has found fertile soil in these sad sacks. They truly believe that this 'new American revolution' is the great equaliser and a harbinger of the Socialist Utopia:

“It was like a goth party,” Min said. “There were queer people, black people, white people, Asian people, and, because, we were all wearing black, there was no way to even think about the things that are often barriers to our connection.” Min said this anonymity, where she was unable to identify even people around her, had a way of purifying her actions. “There’s a difference between me helping you because I know you and care about you, and me helping you because I want you to be helped,” she said.

Min is an artist. For her, this is one of the most unappreciated aspects of black bloc as a style. It’s tactical, and practical, and it’s also an art form with the effect of building solidarity long after the boots go into the closet. The experience of being enveloped in anonymity helps retain the movement’s ideology, after the balaclavas get folded up and stacked in the drawer."[ibid]

The ignorance embodied by this superficial radicalism boggles the mind.

Do they truly believe that they can cut off the branch on which they are sitting and not suffer a fall?

Do they truly believe that they can destroy the very foundations of their freedoms and not suffer any consequences?

I think they do. I think they have been 'educated' to believe that science is a patriarchal tool, that language and biology is all a social construct and that the police/justice systems and in particular white skinned individuals are all tools of the oppressive colonist and therefore anything that they might have achieved in the past is irrelevant. 

I think many actually do believe that if only they can tear down the religion of the oppressor (Christianity), that if they can destroy the economy of the oppressor (capitalism) then all will be well. They believe that tribalism is the multi-cultural way to create harmony and that they can, by force of violence usher in a brave new Utopia of equality of outcomes for everybody. These are the lies that have been sold to the vast majority of young people in the West. I think that they truly believe that somehow, the luxury, the freedoms, the safety and the medical benefits that we take for granted somehow just 'evolved' over time. 

If only they had been taught history at school, they would know how hard won the developments of the West have been. That advancement comes not through the barrel of a gun or the edge of a sword but by standing on the shoulders of giants in the fields of; science, medicine, politics and economics.They would have an understanding that nothing good comes from violent insurrections and they would have learned about the bloody results of the socialist revolutions that came before.

Unfortunately it is a fact attested to by school results, university results, the exposure of school and University courses that fail to produce results (the TAFE debacle in South Australia is a current case in point), the everyday experiences of many colleagues, of my own forays into the world of education and the plain pig-ignorance out of the very mouths of these 'babes in the wood' gives credence to the claim that they have no idea whatsoever of the results of actual socialistic regimes. 

And if they do by some miracle hear the truth of these great social disasters, their first response is that" those countries were not really adopting TRUE SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES. Of course such a response is extremely hubristic because it communicates that the person behind such a claim is superior to all of those who tried and failed. 

Unfortunately such hubris has indeed been massaged into Western youth for more than three decades now. Its an ideology that says; everyone deserves to win and therefore everyone in the team, whether they lost or not, is given a trophy/medal/certificate. That there are no losers. This egregious untruth lies at the very heart of Socialist ideology and its name is; equality of outcome. It embodies an dogma that declares that everyone deserves the same result, not the same opportunity as embodied in the Western worldview (historically). 

What happens when the results are not the same given that everybody has different talents, skills, motivations, degrees of commitment, desires etc? Well what happens is what we have witnessed in every country that has believed in this hogwash. The imposition of  mandated results. And where these results have been impossible to mandate, eradication soon follows. When the ruling oligarchy realises that the only way to bring about equality of outcome is to stamp out individuality thats when we see real barbarism at work. Thus the 20th century witnessed the greatest slaughter of human beings in the name of equality that history has ever seen.

And yet these ignoramuses think that if they were given the opportunity, it would be different.

What was that definition of madness? Doing the same thing, the same way, and expecting a different outcome every time.

EVOLUTION AT WOKE

The primordial soup out of which these 'Social Justice Worriers[sic]' and their slimy ilk crawled, becomes muddier and muddier:

As to what type of show is being staged, let’s look at the dynamics. Forty or so middle-class students, including beneficiaries of DePauw’s policy of racial favouritism in hiring and admissions, decry the “burden” of being brown-skinned at said university, while holding up signs that read, “DePauw = unsafe,” “Don’t kill me,” and “Our situation is intolerable.” If you dare to disagree with the protesters, denunciation seems inevitable, most likely involving accusations of “white privilege,” and possibly racism. If you sit quietly and try to ignore the protest, then, it turns out, you’re on “the side of the oppressor.” And if you signal your approval of the protest – say, by applauding it – then this too is offensive, an insult to the protesters’ heroic struggle.

 Taken at face value, the “social justice” howler monkeys seem difficult to console. Even if you agree with them, they will complain about it. Apparently, those whose event was selfishly interrupted are expected to welcome the protesters’ disdain for everyone present. Specifically, by pretending to feel bad for an absurd made-up reason - i.e., by agreeing that the university is a dangerous and oppressive environment for brown-skinned devotees of “social justice.” Expressions of compliance are demanded, but may only take the form approved by the protesters. (No clapping is allowed, only standing “in solidarity,” for however long is necessary, while remaining mute.) Any other response – from applause to indifference – will be deemed a hostile act and mark you as an enemy. It therefore seems unlikely that such people could be kept happy for any length of time, even assuming one were sufficiently credulous to attempt it.

 However, if you think of the above as a kind of bad-faith theatre, an exercise in in-group positioning, it becomes a little more comprehensible. The object, it seems, is to whine and scold, and to indulge in emotional browbeating, thereby asserting dominance over others. The more improbable the grievance, and the more numerous the hoops through which one has to jump, the sweeter the game is, for a certain kind of person. And as this theatre of victimhood is the basis of the protesters’ status and self-importance, and the thing that excuses all that lovely scolding, it must continue indefinitely. It is, therefore, pointless to engage with such people on their own terms, as if you could ever find some mutual accommodation short of perpetual deference and self-abasement, or as if you could change their minds, or make them less obnoxious.

 The only question is which party is the more wretched and degenerate. The vain little scolds who claim to be oppressed at a university where tuition fees are a mere $50,000 a year, or the cowed and pretentious dupes who applaud their own scolding. [David Thompson]

SERFING THE NEO FEUDAL WAY

The following tax advice from Michael Barone illustrates how overt government control of the economy constricts economic growth by causing the tax payers to seek ways of avoiding paying taxes rather than looking at ways of growing their businesses. Its Human Nature to do so!:

"Currently, the top one percent of earners account for about 40 percent of federal income tax revenue; the next nine percent provide about 30 percent more. You could make the system more progressive with more progressive income tax rates or by raising the amount of income subject to the payroll tax, but at the risk of redirecting high earners' attention from productivity to tax avoidance. Such changes tend to reduce economic growth, just as tax cuts tend to increase it."

My family, small tax payers in the wider scheme of things are nevertheless looking at all sorts of legal ways to avoid paying tax. Instead of being open to paying taxes as we should be, we like many conservatives, are piqued at paying the lions share towards programs and systems that are undermining everything we believe in. 

In fact the Socialists in charge of the circus; a.k.a. government, are usually more concerned with those who don't pay their way. Why? Because these folk are dependent on government largess and other 'freebies' so they keep voting the socialists back into power. The real tragedy of course is that these 'freebies' are not free at all and keep those who are gullible enough to believe in the system firmly entrapped within the system. 

Does the ruling oligarchy care? Not at all...because most of those making the decisions on ideological grounds are buttressed against the negative results of their sociopolitical experiments. Most government bureaucrats enjoy safe sinecures and padded benefits, and as a result they do not have to worry about the real-world effects of their failures and those left to suffer are merely the peasants and serfs of the new, neo-feudalists. 

A CONFESSING EXTREMIST

I suppose I have been called so any names ending with an ‘ist’ or ‘phobe’ attached to them that I have almost become immune to them, with an emphasis on ‘almost’.

In one country I was called an extreme left-winger, a communist, for agreeing with Martin Luther King Jnr that a man should be judged by the content of his character rather than the colour of his skin, whilst in another I am adjudged an extreme right-winger, a racist, for holding the same view. Context matters obviously.

What saddens me most of all is when a fellow Christian who disagrees with my position refers to me by one of these negative epithets. I am aware that many who call themselves Christian are in fact nothing of the sort, but also that many do disagree who are most definitely of the family.

I am quite open to being convinced about the error of my ways but nowadays most do not want to engage in the sort of evidence based or logical dialogue necessary to change one’s mind effectively; instead most resort to the easy option of dismissing the opponent as an ‘ist’ or a ‘phobe’ of one sort or another. This is called the straw man fallacy (look it up).

   

Australia’s Soviet Republic of Utopia, a.k.a. Victoria has just passed the euthanasia bill in its parliament, a sad but true event that merely stands as another signpost on that states decline into totalitarian rule. Pish you might cry, whose exaggerating now? What would you call a government that has ultimate control over if you are to be born (abortion) and now how and why you might die (euthanasia).

But it’s about “dying with dignity” some might cry. Others, who are big on the ‘human rights’ front say; “it’s about the right to choose your own time to pass through this mortal coil”. Still others cite ‘compassion’ in the same mode of conscience as they do for those who choose the aforementioned abortion route.

I like Colson’s illustration from his book My Final Word.

What struck me was that here was a Christian, one who appeared to be serious about her beliefs, advocating euthanasia for purely humane reasons. She was smiling the whole time, very gracious.

All I could think of was C S Lewis’s description of the barbarians in our midst not being the Goths and Vandals with their clubs climbing over the walls, but well-dressed people sitting in well-lighted rooms with clean fingernails, deciding what was best for people. This is what barbarism really is, inhumanity done in the name of humanity, killing people for their own good.

The crucial question is what happens in a society when the good people – and this woman on the plane was one of the good people – really do believe this. Their views become unshakeable; this is what these good people perceive to be the kindest thing they can do. Yet in the name of kindness they perform terrible inhumanity. How do you shake this out of them?

I came away from this chilling encounter gravely concerned because I realize that we are not up against people who decide it’s good to get rid of people for expedient reasons, or to cut down medical bills, or because they enjoy killing. In a way the Nazis were a lot easier to fight than the good people wanting to do ‘humane’ things.

This is a further indication of how the church fails in its mission when it doesn’t teach people the hard truths. This pleasant flight attendant, of all people, should have learned from her church what the truth is.  (pp. 42, 43)